Congressional Republican candor: everyone hates our tax plan except the CEOs we depend on for campaign millions

[tlwest]

@angusm

Until people start questioning that, meaningful social change looks quite unlikely.

Um, I don’t think I want meaningful social change. That means global redistribution, and me losing my precious position in the global 1% ($34K household income).

What I want is some nominal social change were we redistribute the money held by some people in the richest economy on the planet to the other people in the richest economy on the planet based on the standards of the richest economy on the planet, but I’m left still living a life that 99% of humanity can only dream about.

That’s something I’ll fight for (or at least vote for).

[gatto]

@Boundegar

I think this just shows the “big CEOs” don’t hire, nor listen to any economists,

various ceos have proved they have no interest in the long term profits of their companies. and it’s entirely rational.

the most influential shareholders – hedge fund managers, big banks, and 1%s – have set the metrics for ceo pay based on near term share price rises.

everyone is making money on the margins, not on actual value. in part, i think, because it’s just so easy to trade stocks electronically these days.

and it’s a practice further encouraged by “too big fail” where public money is used to cover any mistakes.

people who are solely interested in making the most money possible are behaving in completely sensible, even if destructive, ways.

the things that sound sensible to me are:

• get people to stop using the big banks ( and credit cards ) to help starve the banks of excess funds;
• tax companies on their sales not their profits to decrease tax avoidance ( and the reliance on the working class to pave the roads for the rich );
• establish a significant financial transaction tax to decrease the value of short term trading ( and to make sure that the investment class is paying their fair share );
• get money out of politics so people can pass meaningful laws to reign in actual malfeasance.

@tlwest

What I want is some nominal social change were we redistribute the money held by some people in the richest economy on the planet to the other people in the richest economy on the planet based on the standards of the richest economy on the planet, but I’m left still living a life that 99% of humanity can only dream about.

yeah. it’s definitely not worth reigning in corporate power until after we can ensure everyone on the entire planet is treated exactly the same. i mean, really. why start anywhere?

in fact: i think we should all just sit around and wait till there’s only two classes in the world: the super rich on their floating island nations; and the rest of us poor sods.

[MrHarley]

[tlwest]

I will say, the tax cuts scare me.

Killing ACA would have made millions of people suffer, but I am pretty certain the Republicans would have been massacred in the next election. I’m also pretty certain they realized it to, which is part of why it failed.

With the tax cuts, I am not so certain. The damage is huge, but it’s over the long term. In the short term, I’m not at all confident that the populace will suffer enough to make the Republicans pay the price. And by the time the populace is well and truly paying the price, it’ll be some different government in power that’ll get blamed.

All of this meaning they’ve got every incentive to pass the damn thing.

[gatto]

@SocialJusticeMonk

trickledown economics…

They Might Be Giants - Kiss Me, Son of God (Alternate Version)

"I built a little empire out of some crazy garbage
Called the blood of the exploited working class
But they’ve overcome their shyness
Now they’re calling me Your Highness
And a world screams, “Kiss me, Son of God”

[tlwest]

@gatto

eah. it’s definitely not worth reigning in corporate power until after we can ensure everyone on the entire planet is treated exactly the same. i mean, really. why start anywhere?

I think you misunderstand. I am for nominal change. I meant exactly what I wrote. Hell, I’m for sharply higher taxes on my current income.

But while I’m fighting for it, I’m not going to pretend that it’s significant in any real perspective. I try to be clear headed enough to realize that my “virtue” is actually pretty damned selfish.

[middlewaytao]

Republican = bald faced liar

[Wanderfound]

Reuters Politics (ReutersPolitics)

[Jack_Mike_Mazzella]

Remember The Commander in Queef wasn’t elected by the people. And Gerry Mandering elects a lot of the other clowns. When your out of work and your taxes go up, the wall isn’t started or built and there is no one in power left to blame but the people you put there you would hope even a total moron would be able to figure that one out. But who knows, they keep winning and we keep asking how and letting things go to hell in a handbag.

[for_SCIENCE]

I think things will need to be dire indeed before we see anything though. Carry on the balkanization a couple more decades and then throw in a real economic catastrophe like the Great Depression, i.e. >25% unemployment, starving people overwhelming what social services are left. Then there might be fertile grounds for a bloodbath.

Assuming I remember correctly, the year or two leading up to the American Civil War averaged something like 40 politically motivated killings per week. We’re certainly polarized and moreso everyday but fortunately we’re not yet experiencing an equivalent bodycount.

[anon48336441]

@for_SCIENCE

Assuming I remember correctly, the year or two leading up to the American Civil War averaged something like 40 politically motivated killings per week. We’re certainly polarized and moreso everyday but fortunately we’re not yet experiencing an equivalent bodycount.

I’d categorize the mass shootings and daily executions of black men by law enforcement as being “politically motivated killings”.

[Kimmo]

Just came across this:

They usually take the piss out of the Aussie government. I’ll apologise for them for the dodgy accent.

[anon73430903]

@tlwest

the global 1% ($34K household income)

Can I have a source for this? I see it repeated regularly yet something seems a bit off about the numbers considering that about 1 billion people live in rich countries (basically The US, Canada, The EU including UK, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, Australia and New Zealand).

The only UK “news” source I could see that reported on it was the Daily Mail, which doesn’t help.

[gracchus]

According to this article, the figure comes from Global Rich List, “a website that brings awareness to worldwide income disparities.” However, it only covers income, not assets (another measure offered from the Global Rich List site)-- to be in the global 1% you need to own (free and clear) over $744,400 worth of assets (top 10% is $71,560, top 50% is $2,200).

It’s obvious why right-wing publications and pundits would choose the income figure instead of the assets one to tell all the ingrate peons how good they really have it under the neoliberal consensus. Especially since I’ve seen surveys of American households that show nearly half of them don’t have enough in the bank to cover a $400 emergency.

[tlwest]

@gracchus

It’s obvious why right-wing publications and pundits would choose the income figure instead of the assets one to tell all the ingrate peons how good they really have it under the neoliberal consensus.

Or it could be used by those who want to claim care for the poor and less privileged, but without any of moral responsibility to actually make meaningful sacrifices to their way of life to help them.

Personally, I am a greedy so-and-so. I care enough about my fellow Canadians to vote for higher taxes (My marginal rate is less than 50% at over twice the world 1%!), but not enough to seriously impact my way of life.

But least I understand where I stand. I don’t need to pretend that there’s this vast ethical gulf that separates me from my political opponents, only a matter of degree. Doesn’t stop me from fighting for what I believe is right. Nor do I believe that the only way you can get people to fight for a cause is by pretending that justice will come without any personal sacrifice on their part.

Anyway, I find it rather ludicrous to claim that as a 25 year old with no assets, I was in any way in the same boat as someone with someone living in the undeveloped world or in the slums who also had no assets.

Income is a hell of a lot more important than assets. I’ve been nearly negative in assets, and, thanks to real-estate madness, I’m now reasonably well off in the assets department in later life.

Has this changed my privilege? Hardly at all. I’ve been privileged since the moment I got my first job and earned an income that put me in the North American middle-class. Assets at the time, <$0.

How has the changing assets affected how I actually live? Again, not at all. However, I’ve had a reasonably decent income all along, and that’s why I’ve always been exceptionally privileged.

Now, what assets give is security, which certainly helps general quality of life. But for life-style, what’s really important is having a decent income so that you can dig yourself out of an unexpected hole in a year or two instead of losing everything.

Or to put it another way, I’d way rather lose all my assets than have my income reduced to $5K a year. Losing all my assets would simply mean I’d pay a little less (rent < mortgage). Losing my income would destroy my current life.

So, yes, I will continue to use income to express my privilege rather than assets. I don’t see how trying to give myself a moral “free ride” accomplishes anything.

[gracchus]

@tlwest

Or it could be used by those who want to claim care for the poor and less privileged, but without any of moral responsibility to actually make meaningful sacrifices to their way of life to help them.

Using income as a global measure is a favourite trotted out by hair-shirt progressives, too. To be clear, I don’t think you are one of those or a Libertarian greedhead. Like me, you’re just an affluent Westerner who’s smart about sustainable economics and honest about where he stands economically and what he can do to make things better for everyone.

@tlwest

Income is a hell of a lot more important than assets.

Income is a symbol of global privilege and remains so when you take into account disparate cost-of-living figures. That’s especially true of the steady income that comes with a career, given how a greater and greater proportion of the U.S. workforce becomes more precarious if not unnecessary with ever passing month.

However, that changes when one’s assets are enough to provide a comfortable income without having to do any work (this is where Piketty and his “r > g” formula comes in on a microeconomic scale). If one has $1.5 million in invested assets (as opposed to a fully paid off home worth $1.5 million), that amounts to approx. $60k/annum in income without lifting a finger. If one is in that situation and still of working age and inclination, one is probably also gaining a nice income from a fulfilling career on top of that thanks to a combination of social and financial capital.

When we use the term “the 1%” we’re talking about having both the lifestyle and the financial security of an rich person. The former can be faked thanks to consumer credit or easy-term mortgages, but those bills eventually come due for non-1%ers in a way they never do for members of the 1% if they avail themselves of such credit. That, and the greater difficulty that bad actors have in spinning it their way, is why assets remain the better measure for distinguishing the truly wealthy from everyone else on a global or domestic scale.

[tlwest]

Thanks for a tempered reply to my perhaps less-than-temperate post.

My point has always been that my motivations are not that different from most of my political opponents. Sure, I have a different utility function than them, just as I have a different utility function than those who feel that no-one should earn above $10K until we all do.

However, I don’t think that othering my opponents by making them out as evil or bad actors or the like helps my cause. And sure, there are actual bad actors, but they can be found in small numbers on all sides. (And like a legal system, I believe it’s better to mistakenly assume good intentions 10 times than mistakenly attribute malice once.)

I think recognizing that we are privileged is the only way of inoculating the left-wing movement from the truly evil power seekers who would seek to use our empathy to build a hatred-fueled force that mostly enriches themselves. That’s why I choose to use income as a measure.

@gracchus

If one has $1.5 million in invested assets (as opposed to a fully paid off home worth $1.5 million), that amounts to approx. $60k/annum in income without lifting a finger.

You obviously have a better investment portfolio than I do. My ~1/10th of that (retirement - I’ve got no pension) is earning about 1%.